When I first read about the emails by Rep. Mark Foley to a congressional page, I dismissed the matter as unimportant and not worthy of comment.

After all, this was not a stranger seeking out kids on the internet -- this was a known, trusted adult. And the information he sought, which his staff claimed was for a letter of recommendation, I routinely ask kids for full name, address, phone number, date of birth, and information about extracurricular information when I write them letters of recommendation for college, and keep that information (and the letters) on file for a couple of years for future reference. And I can't tell you the number of pictures of former students I have around my classroom.

And while I found the question about what the young man wanted for his birthday to be a bit odd, if you consider that the kid lives in the area hit by Hurricane Katrina it looks like an act of kindness subject to wild misinterpretation.

And then the IM came out -- and Foley rightly resigned.

But we are now faced with the question of who knew what and when.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was notified early this year of inappropriate e-mails from former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.) to a 16-year-old page, a top GOP House member said yesterday -- contradicting the speaker's assertions that he learned of concerns about Foley only last week.

Hastert did not dispute the claims of Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (R-N.Y.), and his office confirmed that some of Hastert's top aides knew last year that Foley had been ordered to cease contact with the boy and to treat all pages respectfully.

* * *

Hastert's aides learned in the fall of 2005 only of e-mail exchanges that House officials eventually deemed "over-friendly" with the Louisiana teenager, the speaker's office said yesterday in a lengthy statement. "While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation" with Reynolds, the statement said, "he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution."

Boehner and Reynolds said their offices learned of the Foley e-mails months ago from Rep. Rodney Alexander (R), who sponsored the page from his northeastern-Louisiana district.

"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of the e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's," Reynolds said yesterday. "Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me."

Now if all they had were the initial batch of emails, I think the matter may well have been handled appropriately. Hastert, a former teacher and coach, likely would have looked at them exactly as I did. And he did exactly what I believe iIwould have done in that situation -- tell a colleague to be more aware of appropriate boundaries and to cease contact with the boy. Otherwise, there was nothing to the matter to be done. No law appeareds to be broken based upon the facts as initially known.

But unless someone can demonstrate that the IMs were known to congressional leaders or their staffs, Democrat politicization of Foley's misdeeds is inappropriate. Not that it will stop statements like this.

With his statement, [Rep. Tom] Reynolds, who is locked in a difficult reelection campaign, signaled he was unwilling to take the fall alone amid partisan attacks that were becoming increasingly vituperative. The Democratic National Committee yesterday issued a statement asking "Why Did Tom Reynolds Cover Up Congressman's Sex Crimes?" It continued: "While the shocking [online] exchanges produced an immediate uproar that cost Congressman Foley his job, at least one member of the House Republican leadership had known about the situation for months and did nothing about it: . . . Reynolds."

Now I agree with people on both sides of the aisle that this matter needs further inquiry. But absent evidence that the sexually-charged IMs were known before last week, I have to argue that this is a scandal without substance.

UPDATE: GOPBloggers asks What Did The Media Know About Foley And How Long Did They Know It?

Everyone from the St. Petersburg Times to the Palm Beach Post to Roll Call to the Washington Post had the emails that were released by ABC this past Thursday, and none of them went with the story. It seems rather odd now that those same reporters are asking Hastert and others, what did you know and when did you know it?

An interesting question, given that the St. Petersburg Times admits to having the original emails back in November. If they were not significant enough for them to run the story back then, how is it they can damn the GOP leadership in Congress for also finding them to be less than compelling?

MORE AT: Captain's Quarters, Ms. Underestimated, Stop the ACLU, LaShawn Barber, Florida Masochist, Sister Toldjah, A Blog For All, Wizbang Politics, Blue Crab Boulevard, Lawhawk, Unpartisan, Gay Patriot, Real Clear Politics, The American Mind, Right Wing News, Suitably Flip, Ace of Spades, Michelle Malkin.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Bullwinkle Blog, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Clash of Civilizations, Random Yak, Blue Star Chronicles, Pursuing Holiness, Samantha Burns, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop the ACLU, Church & State, Is It Just Me?

Posted by: Greg at 12:49 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 912 words, total size 8 kb.